 |
| Derryn Hinch has defied court orders and named a convicted Paedophile |
So, it would appear that the Human Headline (btw..don't you think it's time to give that moniker to someone else? A Kardashian? Kyle Sandilands?) has done it again.
Despite going to jail for it a couple of decades ago (when did I get so ooold?), being on home detention just last year, and some near misses, Derryn Hinch has this morning named a Sydney Property Developer convicted of molesting his 11 year old daughter.
I'm stuck on this one. Obviously, the law (at least, I hope it's obviously. It's becoming less so, I guess) was put in place to protect the identity of victims. And I can absolutely get behind that. I know that when I was 11, I absolutely didn't want people knowing my grandfather had molested me or my sisters. That was our business, and it was many, many years before I was ready to disclose that information.
So I could understand a judge yesterday agreeing to suppress the name of the sex-offender if it was for the privacy of the little girl, now a woman, involved. It's not, however, the reason that was given.
During the case the convicted man's barrister, Anthony Bellanto, QC successfully argued to have the defendant's name suppressed in NSW to ''minimise any ongoing damage to his reputation''.
Mr Bellanto said keeping the man’s name secret “could reduce the damage that will no doubt occur if these matters reach the electronic and print media” and that naming the man would have a “catastrophic impact on his ability to earn income”.
Now this. This is a whole other kettle of fish.
The judge didn't suppress the details, intimate details of what he did to her. She had to stand up in court while those terrible acts were read out. She had to sit there as people stared at her while it was read out. The judge didn't make any move to suppress those details. No. Just his name.
How on earth, does anyone convicted of sexually assaulting a child have any rights to privacy? How can a judge possibly see fit to give a flying....well, you know, about his business reputation? Or his ability to earn an income? His reputation? His reputation SHOULD be that he is a child predator. Because he is. A convicted child predator.
How does anything, anything in the world trump that? How can anything ever be more important than that?
I'm ropeable. I know this isn't the first time that I've addressed the appalling lack of respect, concern and consideration given to the victims of sexual crimes. But I can't help it. How can he hide behind the law?
I'm not saying Hinch was in the right. He did break the law. Again. Less than 3 months after his house arrest ended. But oh, I can feel his frustration. I feel it myself. Absolute, soul shaking fury that yet again, a rich businessman is being protected by the very system that should be preventing him from ever striking again.
She was 11. Not even a teenager (as though somehow being a teenager makes it any better). A baby.
Who will never, ever again look at the world the same way. But that's ok. Because when he gets out of jail in a year or so, he'll be able to carry on with his business and rake in the money. Because at least we haven't damaged his reputation.
What do you think? Do you think that the business man is entitled to privacy? Do you think Hinch will do time for this? Do you think he should?
